Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T03:30:56.205Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Commentary: Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Susan Bartlett Foote
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Symposium
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , Winter 2009 , pp. 629 - 632
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Paradise, J. et al., “Evaluating Oversight of Human Drugs and Medical Devices: A Case Study of the FDA and Implications for Nanobiotechnology,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 37, no. 4 (2009): 546–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Many of the expansions of the FDA regulatory authority are quite detailed and specific in terms of scope of authority, tools available for implementation, and procedures that must be followed in developing regulations to implement the statutes. The FDA has very limited discretion in implementing these directives. For an illustration of these constraints relevant to another agency in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), see Foote, S. B., “Why Medicare Cannot Promulgate a National Coverage Rule: A Case of Regula Mortis,” Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 27, no. 5 (2002): 707–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Remarks of former Commissioner Jane S. Henney, at the Medical Technology Leadership Forum, Indianapolis, IN, December 8, 2008, cited in “FDA in the 21st Century: Issues and their Impact on Medical Technology,” at 3, available at <www.mtlf.org/docs/ForumReport-Inpls-Finals.pdf> (last visited October 30, 2009).+(last+visited+October+30,+2009).>Google Scholar
See Carpenter, D. P., “Groups, the Media and Agency Waiting Costs: Political Economy of FDA Drug Approval,” American Journal of Political Science 46, no. 3 (2002): 490–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Egilman, D. S., Presler, A. H. and Valentin, C. S., “Avoiding Regulatory Capture of the Food and Drug Administration,” Archives of Internal Medicine 167, no. 7 (2007): 732–733.Google Scholar
Foote, S. B. and Berlin, R. J., “Can Regulation Be as Innovative as Science and Technology? The FDA's Regulation of Combination Products,” Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology 6, no. 2 (2005): 619–644.Google Scholar
See id., at 644.Google Scholar
Prescription drug user fees were first enacted in 1992 and medical device user fees followed in 2002. Adjustments to the fees have occurred in reauthorization measures. See Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 (PDUFA), Pub. L. No. 102–571, 106 Stat. 4491 (1992); Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 (MDUFMA), Pub. L. No 107–250; 116 Stat. 1588 (2002). Actual use of these fees has been controversial.Google Scholar